In Depth

The Indiana Court of Appeals tackled an issue of first impression in a case involving double jeopardy principles. A defendant’s
sentence was enhanced under the Firearm Enhancement Statute following a conviction for reckless homicide.

In John G. Cooper v. State of Indiana, No. 32A05-1005-CR-309, John Cooper challenged his aggregate
13-year sentence for reckless homicide, which included a five-year enhancement under the Firearm Enhancement Statute. Cooper
was convicted of Class C felony reckless homicide and the jury determined the state proved the firearm enhancement beyond
a reasonable doubt. He claimed the evidence was insufficient to support the enhancement and that double jeopardy principles
bar the enhancement because the conviction and enhancement were based on the single act of killing Michael Gelinas with a
firearm.

Cooper suspected his wife was having an affair with Gelinas and purchased a shotgun and shells several days before confronting
Gelinas at his home. An altercation ensued and Gelinas was shot and killed while he and Cooper wrestled. Cooper claimed he
went to the home just to scare Gelinas.

The appellate judges affirmed there was sufficient evidence to support the enhancement, finding the state was able to prove
Cooper knowingly or intentionally used a firearm to commit a reckless act.

In addressing the double jeopardy issue, the judges had to look to other jurisdictions for guidance because no Indiana court
has squarely addressed this issue. Several of those jurisdictions have concluded that firearm sentencing enhancements similar
to Indiana’s don’t raise double jeopardy concerns because the enhancement is merely a cumulative punishment rather
than a separate offense, wrote Judge John Baker.

“We agree with those jurisdictions recognizing that sentencing enhancements are not offenses for double jeopardy purposes
in circumstances such as the one before us. Indeed, the Firearm Enhancement Statute only prescribes an additional penalty
for felonies that are committed with the use of a firearm,” he wrote.

Judge Baker also pointed to Joshua Nicoson v. State of Indiana, No. 32S04-1003-CR-150, in which a split Indiana
Supreme Court recently held that state statute says that the use of a firearm can be the grounds for a sentence enhancement
and doesn’t violate double jeopardy. Joshua Nicoson received a five-year sentence enhancement on one of his convictions
of confinement with a deadly weapon.

“Again, Cooper was convicted of a single offense, for which the legislature has specifically provided a harsher penalty
based on the use of a firearm. And even though the jury relied upon Cooper’s use of the shotgun for both the underlying
offense and the enhancement, the legislature’s intent is clear that criminal offenses committed with firearms are to
receive additional punishment,” he wrote.

The judges also affirmed Cooper’s aggregate 13-year sentence, finding it to be appropriate given the nature of the
offense and his character.

ADVERTISEMENT

Conversations

3 Comments

If he received punisment for a single crime and additional punishment (enhancement) for the same single crime, that certainly
is double jeopardy. The courts can use any and all of the ambiguous language they choose to try to make their illegal, unconstitutional
BS appear to be correct, when anyone but a lunatic knows better!

Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or
hateful.

You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.

Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content
are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.

No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are
relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.

We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag
a post simply because you disagree with it.